Summary: Mr and Mrs X complained that the Council wrongly initiated court proceedings for unpaid penalty notices, despite having received full payment. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. The Council failed to identify that payment had been made, did not act on the complainants’ correspondence, and escalated the matter to legal proceedings when enforcement was no longer appropriate. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

The complaint

1. Mrs X say the Council wrongly pursued court proceedings for two unpaid fixed penalty notices, despite payment having already been made. Mrs X says the notices were issued in only two envelopes, which led to confusion and payment under two references only. They provided evidence of the payments by email, but the Council failed to act on it. They were later served with court papers, causing distress to them and their children. Mrs X seeks an apology, compensation, and assurance that the Council will change its systems to prevent similar errors.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’. In this statement, I have used the word fault to refer to these. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint. I refer to this as ‘injustice’. If there has been fault which has caused significant injustice, or that could cause injustice to others in the future we may suggest a remedy. (Local Government Act 1974, sections 26(1) and 26A(1), as amended)
3. Under the information sharing agreement between the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted), we will share this decision with Ofsted.
4. If we are satisfied with an organisation’s actions or proposed actions, we can complete our investigation and issue a decision statement. (Local Government Act 1974, section 30(1B) and 34H(i), as amended)

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

5. I considered evidence provided by Mrs X and the Council as well as relevant law, policy and guidance.
6. Mrs X and the Council will now have an opportunity to comment on my draft decision. I will consider any comments before making a final decision.

Back to top

What I found

Relevant guidance and legislation

Penalty notices and payment procedures

7. Under section 444 of the Education Act 1996, a parent may be guilty of an offence if their child fails to attend school regularly without authorisation. Local authorities may issue penalty notices as an alternative to prosecution.
8. The Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007 set out the framework for issuing and paying penalty notices. Regulation 6 states that the penalty is payable to the local education authority but does not prescribe how the payment must be referenced or allocated.
9. Councils may implement administrative procedures to manage penalty notice payments. These procedures are not set out in legislation but are designed to support local enforcement of school attendance.
10. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies advises that where faults in systems or procedures are identified, councils should consider appropriate service improvements in addition to individual remedies.

Good administrative practice

11. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has published Principles of Good Administrative Practice to guide how public bodies should act. These principles include acting proportionately, being open and accountable, and putting things right when errors occur. In particular, the principle of accountability requires councils to take responsibility for their actions and decisions, including the systems they design and the consequences those systems may have for individuals.
12. Where a council has discretion to implement administrative procedures — such as those governing how penalty notice payments are processed and matched, it remains responsible for ensuring those systems are fair, reasonable, and do not cause avoidable harm. The Ombudsman expects councils to review and improve such systems where faults are identified, especially if there is potential for recurrence. These principles are relevant in cases where technical or administrative issues lead to enforcement action that could have been avoided.

Back to top

What happened

13. In June 2024, the complainants, Mr and Mrs X, received four fixed penalty notices from the Council in relation to unauthorised school absences for their two children. Each notice carried a penalty of £60. The notices were sent in two envelopes, and each parent received one notice per child. In late June 2024, the complainants made two payments of £120 each. Each payment included one of the four reference numbers provided with the penalty notices.
14. In early September 2024, the complainants received a letter stating that two of the penalty notices remained unpaid. In September, Mrs X contacted the school and was advised to send evidence of payment directly to the Council. She emailed the Council that same day with payment information and offered to provide further evidence if needed. An automated reply confirmed receipt of the email and stated that it would be forwarded to the relevant department.
15. Later in September 2024, Mr and Mrs X received court papers from the Magistrates’ Court relating to the alleged non-payment of the two penalty notices. The complainants contacted the Council and visited its offices at the end of September. Later that day, the Council confirmed that the matter had been withdrawn from court and the school received confirmation that all penalty notices had been paid.
16. Mr and Mrs X made a formal complaint to the Council in September 2024. The Council responded at all three stages of its complaints process. It acknowledged that two payments had been received against two of the penalty notices, and that the complainants’ email sent in early September had not been forwarded to the appropriate team. The Council apologised for the distress caused, confirmed that the court proceedings had been withdrawn, and stated that it was reviewing its penalty notice system. The Council did not propose a remedy beyond that apology.

Back to top

Analysis

Issuing and payment of penalty notices

17. The Council issued four penalty notices to Mr and Mrs X, each carrying a £60 charge. The notices were sent in two envelopes. Mr and Mrs X made two payments of £120 on the day they received the notices, referencing two of the four notice numbers. This matched the total amount owed, but only half of the individual reference numbers were included.
18. The Council has explained that its system requires each penalty notice to be paid separately with its own reference number, and that payments cannot be reallocated or matched to multiple notices. Although the notices included this instruction, it was not underpinned by any statutory requirement, and the Council's system lacked the flexibility to accommodate reasonable payment variations.
19. This meant the remaining two notices were incorrectly flagged as unpaid. The Council’s process relies entirely on parents understanding and complying with a payment method that is not statutorily required, and which may not be intuitive, particularly where notices are sent together. The Council does not appear to have any safeguards to check for payment anomalies before progressing to enforcement.
20. In this case, the complainants made prompt payment in full. The Council’s inability to recognise this, and its lack of internal checks, meant the matter escalated unnecessarily. The system, and the wider process lacked safeguards to detect and resolve the payment issue before enforcement action was taken, even though the full amount had been paid. As a result, enforcement was initiated when the legal basis to do so no longer existed. This was fault.

Council handling of correspondence and enforcement action

21. In early September, Mrs X contacted the school after receiving a letter stating that two penalty notices remained unpaid. She was advised to forward her payment evidence to the Council, which she did by email. Although the Council issued an automated acknowledgment, it did not ensure the email reached the relevant team. As a result, the evidence was not reviewed, and the information it contained was not taken into account before further action was taken.
22. This represents a failure in the Council’s internal communication and correspondence-handling processes. The Council had the necessary information to resolve the matter but did not act on it. In the absence of any further engagement with the complainants or review of the payment evidence, the Council proceeded to issue court documents later in September.
23. The Council has since accepted that the complainants' email was not correctly routed and that the full payment had been received. The enforcement action could have been avoided if the Council had taken reasonable steps to process the correspondence and confirm the payment position before escalation. This was also fault.

Council responses and procedural review

24. In response to the complaint, the Council acknowledged that the complainants had made two payments and that these were not correctly matched to all four penalty notices. It also accepted that the complainants’ email in early September was not passed to the relevant team and therefore not acted upon before enforcement was initiated.
25. While the Council expressed regret and confirmed that the proceedings were withdrawn, it did not offer a specific remedy or set out any clear actions to prevent similar issues from recurring. It stated that the penalty notice system was under review but did not identify what changes, if any, would be made to improve payment reconciliation or internal correspondence handling.
26. The Council maintained in its complaint responses that the complainants had not followed the payment instructions printed on the notices. While the notices stated that each penalty must be paid using the corresponding reference number, there is no legislative requirement for payments to be made in this way. The Education (Penalty Notices) (England) Regulations 2007 require payment to be made to the local authority, but do not prescribe how payments must be referenced or allocated.
27. Councils may introduce local administrative arrangements to manage payment reconciliation. However, where these systems are discretionary, the Council remains responsible for ensuring they are fair, accessible, and robust. The Council did not explain why no manual checks were carried out before issuing court proceedings, or why its systems are unable to detect overpayments or flag potential errors. There is no indication that staff reviewed the payment records before enforcement action was taken, even though the complainants had already provided relevant evidence.
28. The Ombudsman’s Principles of Good Administrative Practice require councils to act with accountability, including taking responsibility for the design and consequences of their systems. Where faults are identified, the Guidance on Remedies states that councils should consider service improvements, not just individual redress.
29. The Council stated that it is reviewing its penalty notice system, but it did not provide detail about what changes are being considered or whether any improvements have already been implemented. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance, where faults in systems or procedures are identified, we expect councils to reflect on the wider learning from complaints. It will be important for the Council to ensure its procedures are sufficiently robust to identify and resolve payment anomalies before enforcement action is taken, particularly where full payment has already been received. This will help reduce the risk of avoidable enforcement in future.

Injustice to the complainants

30. Mr and Mrs X describe distress caused by receiving court documents at home, including anxiety about criminal proceedings and the effect this had on their children. Mrs X reports that the stress of the situation triggered a flare-up of a medical condition, affecting her physical health and wider family wellbeing. The couple also spent time and effort trying to resolve the issue, including contacting the school, corresponding with the Council, visiting its offices, and pursuing the complaint through all three stages of the Council’s procedure.
31. As we consider the enforcement action was avoidable, the impact described by Mr and Mrs X was a direct result of the failings identified in the Council’s systems and correspondence handling. In our view, this warrants a remedy to acknowledge the distress caused and to recognise the time and trouble involved in resolving the matter.

Back to top

Agreed actions

32. To remedy injustice in this complaint, and to prevent similar occurrences, the Council will:
1. Send a written apology to Mr and Mrs X acknowledging the distress caused by issuing court proceedings in error, and the avoidable time and trouble involved in resolving the matter.
2. Make a symbolic payment of £250 to Mr and Mrs X to acknowledge the avoidable distress, anxiety, and time and trouble caused by the Council’s failure to act on their payment evidence and its decision to escalate the matter to court despite full payment having been made.
3. Review its penalty notice procedures to ensure payment records are properly reviewed before enforcement action is taken. This should include either adapting its systems to detect overpayments or introducing a manual check to identify payment anomalies where enforcement is being considered.
4. Ensure internal correspondence-handling arrangements are robust enough to route payment-related emails to the correct team.
33. The Council will complete action points a to b within one month of the Ombudsman’s final decision and action points c to d within two months of the Ombudsman’s final decision. The Council will provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance.

Back to top

Decision

34. We have concluded our investigation with a finding of fault. The Council failed to identify that payment had been made, did not act on the complainants’ correspondence, and escalated the matter to legal proceedings when enforcement was no longer appropriate. The Council has accepted our recommendations.

Investigator’s decision on behalf of the Ombudsman

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman